Carter v. Stringer

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motions for Appointment of Counsel ([Docs. 20 , 21 , 23 ) are DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 01/10/2022. (ANP)

Case: 4:20-cv-01585-SEP Doc. #: 35 Filed: 01/10/22 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 142

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM CARTER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
MARK STRINGER,
Respondent.

No. 4:20-CV-1585 SEP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are Petitioner’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel. Docs. [20], [21],
[23]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are denied without prejudice.
There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v.
Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to
appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including: (1) whether the petitioner has
presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the
petitioner will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need
to further investigate and present the facts related to the petitioner’s allegations; and (4) whether
the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Johnson v. Williams, 788
F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
Petitioner has presented non-frivolous allegations in his Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, but so far there is no basis to conclude that he cannot adequately investigate and present
his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are
complex. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioner’s requests for counsel at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel
([Docs. [20], [21], [23]) are DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 10th day of January, 2022.

SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE